Warsi apologised, said it was an oversight and then detailed another meeting the pair had both been at in Pakistan the following year. Whether she has been completely candid about the full extent of her dealings with Abid is something a Downing Street investigation will probably consider. Certainly the photos of their meetings suggest Abid more than a mere coincidental spectator.

Here he is with her, for example, in Lahore in July 2011.

He seems to be some form of political fixer for her on Pakistani affairs…when he’s not doing his day job at Tower Hamlets council, that is. And this is where it starts to get really interesting.

As Jason Lewis discovered last week, Abid earns about £60,000 a year as the “third sector and external fund manager” at the council. Originally from Yorkshire, he seems to have dabbled and debated with Islamist party Hizb ut-Tahrir as a student before later getting a job with the Doncaster New Deal for Communities housing regeneration scheme. He left that post in 2003 when he got a more senior role at the £56million Ocean NDC under its then chief executive Matin Miah. One of the key board members on the NDC was Alibor Choudhury, now Mayor Lutfur Rahman’s cabinet member for finance.

A couple of years later, the council began a major push on the Housing Choice initiative, which was farming off for free many large estates to housing associations in the name of regeneration. None was bigger than the Ocean and the council and the NDC selected Sanctuary housing association as its preferred partner. Abid was a major backer of the Sanctuary move and gained a reputation for being pretty persuasive, in a charming way.

Then MP George Galloway warned there would be “no sanctuary with Sanctuary” and the vote, amid concerns of fraud, went against the council. Abid stayed with the NDC and became the interim chief executive from late 2007 until it was eventually wound up in late 2009.

At that time, Lutfur Rahman was the council leader and his assistant chief executive was the one and only Lutfur Ali. It was Lutfur Ali who oversaw the selection of a new job, the “third sector and external funding manager”. It was advertised in November 2009 at a local government grade of LP08. Friends tell me these grades would normally be politically restricted, although they do depend on the nature of the work. I’ve no idea if Abid’s job is as such and the council won’t tell me.

If it is politically restricted, then he would have had to declare any political activity with Baroness Warsi and quite likely with the Pakistan Muslim League N (UK). Again, the council declines to comment on this.

However, there are more interesting aspects to this.

In March, Lutfur Rahman abolished the longstanding and cross-party Grants Panel and assumed full executive control. The author of the proposal for this move was Abid Hussain. See the cabinet paper here. The grants system is one of the most important elements of political control. The usually small community groups which apply for the annual £3.5million of funding can be important to councillors in their own wards in terms of building networks of votes. There have been concerns in the past about the way this money is doled out: you’ll remember I highlighted one here earlier this year (about free extracurricular Bengali lessons for all children).

Under the Grants Panel system, officers would assess the applications and make recommendations to the Grants Panel for councillors to decide. Lutfur’s move means that these recommendations will be made to a new board controlled by Lutfur. It is Abid Hussain who is in charge of presenting those recommendations to that board.

That puts him in a very special position.

And Lutfur is likely to think he is special. After all, in August 2010, during his campaign to become Labour’s candidate for mayor, I’m told it was Abid who arranged for Lutfur and his deputy Ohid Ahmed to “gatecrash” (as one councillor put it to me) a meeting in Walthamstow where David Miliband was present as part of his then leadership campaign. Abid lives in Walthamstow and is friendly with Labour councillors there. If Abid’s job is politically restricted I’m not sure he should have been getting involved like that…

As ever, don’t be shy in sending me more information and here’s the piece I’ve written for today’s Sunday Express, which contains more colourful (and, in a sense, admiring) descriptions from senior council figures about Abid Hussain.

THE Downing Street probe into Tory chairwoman Baroness Warsi is likely to examine her association a businessman-cum-middle ranking council officer who colleagues jokingly call the “Arthur Daley of Pakistan”.

The Sunday Express has learnt that Abid Hussain, a second cousin of Lady Warsi’s husband, regularly boasts about his connections to her and to senior figures in Pakistan.

An inquiry ordered by David Cameron last week will consider whether Mr Hussain, 42, had styled himself as a form of informal special adviser to Lady Warsi on Pakistani affairs.

Mr Hussain, 42, is regarded by colleagues at Tower Hamlets Council in east London, where he works as a £60,000 a year grants manager, as “charming, clever and canny” but they also joke he is like a “wheeler-dealer” notorious for name-dropping and frequently talking “extremely loudly” on his personal mobile phone.

While there is no suggestion of impropriety, they claim he wields far more influence than his relatively junior job title suggests because he is close to the regime of the borough’s controversial independent mayor, Lutfur Rahman.

Mr Hussain is now said by friends to be “very worried” after the revelations of the past week.

The Prime Minister has ordered his officials to investigate whether Lady Warsi broke the ministerial code by failing to declare her business interests with Mr Hussain when she took him on a Government trip to Pakistan shortly after she joined the Cabinet in July 2010.

At that time, the pair were both shareholders in Rupert’s Recipes, a small Yorkshire food company.

Lady Warsi apologised to Mr Cameron last week but insisted there had been no financial motive or wrongdoing for either of them.

However, she is facing further questions.

In her letter to the PM, she detailed “in the interests of transparency” another meeting she and Mr Hussain attended in Pakistan in February 2011, but explained they had been there on separate delegations.

Photographs show Mr Hussain as one of the trip’s key figures, lavishing praise on his relative and gently guiding her through a crowd of admirers.

Five months later, they attended another meeting in London at which key Pakistani leaders were also present and at which Mr Hussain also played a prominent role.

Reported to be a former member of Islamic group Hizb ut-Tahrir, he is now an activist in the more secular and influential UK arm of the Pakistan Muslim League N party.

He also has interests in a number of UK business ventures.

The Sunday Express and senior councillors have asked whether he was required by his bosses to declare his business and political interests and, if so, whether he has done so.

The council said it would not comment on any employee but added: “We do have mechanisms to look into matters of public interest.”

Calls to his office were answered by weary-sounding colleagues last week and he has failed to respond to questions posed by email.

Mr Hussain is known to be highly regarded by Mayor Lutfur Rahman and is also close to ex-Labour peer Lord Ahmed, another Rahman ally.

He moved to east London from Yorkshire in 2003 after quitting the Doncaster New Deal for Communities housing regeneration scheme for a more senior role at the Ocean New Deal for Communities.

He was later interim chief executive before the organisation was wound down in late 2009 when his experience won him his current role.

Only months after taking up his non-partisan council job, sources say Mr Hussain played a part in Mr Rahman’s mayoral campaign by taking him to see David Miliband for an opportunistic photo at a friend’s house in Waltham Forest, east London.

Mr Hussain is now a key player in an ongoing controversy at the council.

Last March, Mayor Rahman abolished the “inefficient” cross-party grants committee and now controls the £3.5million annual pot of grants.

Mr Hussain will be responsible for assessing applications and making recommendations to the mayor and a new board.

One councillor said: “Anyone who meets Abid soon knows he’s close to Warsi.”

The extract quoted below includes a number of links to other webpages which I’ve not included as links.

Politically Restricted Posts (PoRPs)
The main provisions regarding PoRPs are set out in Part I of the LGHA 1989. Further details are set out in the Local Government (Political Restrictions) Regulations 1990 (LGO(PR)R 1990) [SI 851].

The effect of including a local authority employee on the list of ‘politically restricted posts’ is to prevent that individual from having any active political role either in or outside the workplace. Politically restricted employees will automatically be disqualified from standing for or holding elected office, and these restrictions are incorporated as terms in the employee’s contract of employment under s.3 LGO(PR)R 1990. It is left to the discretion of each authority whether or not to reinstate an employee who resigns his post, and then consequently fights and loses an election.

In practice, this equates to debarring a substantial number of local government employees from standing for office as:

local councillors
MPs
MEPs
Members of the Welsh Assembly
Members of the Scottish Parliament
They are also restricted from:

canvassing on behalf of a political party or a person who is or seeks to be a candidate (Reg 3, Sched Part I, para 5 LGO(PR)R 1990)
speaking to the public at large or publishing any written or artistic work that could give the impression that they are advocating support for a political party (Reg 3, Sched Pt II, LGO(PR)R 1990)
The cumulative effect of these restrictions is to limit the holders of ‘PoRPs’ to bare membership of political parties, with no active participation within the party permitted.

All local authority employees, including craft and manual workers, fall within the scope of the Act including part-time posts.

Which posts are politically restricted?
Each local authority is under a duty to draw-up and regularly update a list of those posts which are politically restricted.

With effect from 12 January 2010 politically restricted posts fall into two broad categories: specified posts and sensitive posts.

Specified posts:

the Head of the Paid Service (HoPS) (s4 LGHA)
the statutory chief officers, (including the director of children’s services and director of adult social services in England, and the chief education officer and director of social services in Wales, the chief officer of a fire brigade, the chief finance officer (s.151 LGA 1972)
non-statutory chief officers (officers reporting to the HoPS excluding secretarial/clerical support staff)
deputy chief officers (officers reporting to a Chief Officer excluding secretarial/clerical support staff)
the monitoring officer (s 5 LGHA)
officers exercising delegated powers, i.e. persons whose posts are for the time being specified by the authority in a list maintained in accordance with s 100G(2) of the LGA 1972
assistants to political groups
All these post holders are politically restricted without rights of appeal for exemption to the local authority’s standards committee (in England) or to the Independent Adjudicator to Local Authorities in Wales.

‘Sensitive’ posts
A sensitive post is one which meets one or both of the following duties-related criteria:

giving advice on a regular basis to the authority itself, to any committee or sub-committee of the authority or to any joint committee on which the authority are represented; or where the authority are operating executive arrangements, to the executive of the authority; to any committee of that executive; or to any member of that executive who is also a member of the authority
speaking on behalf of the authority on a regular basis to journalists or broadcasters
These post holders can appeal to the local standards committee (in England) or the Independent Adjudicator to Local Authorities in Wales to be exempted from the list, on the grounds that the authority has wrongly applied the criteria.

In addition, The European Court of Human Rights has determined that political restrictions do not breach Article 10 (the right to freedom of expression) or Article 11 (the right to freedom of association) of the applicant’s Convention rights, as the public has a right to expect that those holding higher level local government office are politically impartial.

I think you might now want to ask whether or not this officer’s activities relative to the status of his post have been referred to the Local Standards Committee for Tower Hamlets.

It would be interesting to know whether the The European Court of Human Rights would expect to see the results of all investigations made public within the context of the right of the electorate to expect that all senior officers will be politically impartial. As in justice must be seen to be done as well as actually being done.

PS You might also want to read what the link I’ve cited has to say about Political Assistants…….

I haven’t got a clue who this bloke is, but your story could be edited down to this:

“Bloke embroiled in Warsi affair used to work at the Ocean NDC after expereince of working at another NDC. He then got a job at Tower Hamlets Council after the Ocean NDC wound up. The post he now holds might be politically restricted, but then again it might not.”

See how the arch-collaborator seeks to intimidate those who dare protest against the excesses of the regime which he was so instrumental in setting up.

I am not inciting anyone to do anything. I am not threatening or being abusive. I am merely observing the ongoing charade that I, as a tax payer, am obliged to fund and the malpractise and apparent corruption which I object to. I believe I have a human right of free speech or does that only apply when I am not contradicting the Approved Message.

No doubt you keep copies of the electoral register at home, on your computer, maybe at work… I recommend not using it illegally in any further attempt to intimidate me or to facilitate others to do so.

On Ted’s interesting story – I ask people to look at this model:

David Cameron = George Galloway

Seem impossible? Not when you do this though…

Cameron = Warsi = Abid = Rahman = Galloway

It never ceases to amaze me how miracles can happen!! However, I’m not suggesting the apparent impossibility of these political connections are evidence of a conspiracy and like you I’m convinced these characters are all involved solely out of an altruistic and transparent desire to serve the British taxpayer!

I for one would be fascinated to know which “community organisations” this Abid has passed funds too and whether most of those organisations are coincidentally from the same community and whose continued support our mayor wants. I wonder if I can form an organisation for my “community” and syphon off public funds or would that somehow be deemed ‘racist’ by the occupation authorities?

There are also questions over Mr Hussain, who met Mr Cameron at a Downing Street reception in November 2010 at which Lady Warsi was also present.
He has been closely involved with the Islamist group Hizb ut Tahrir, which Mr Cameron pledged to ban while in opposition. Mr Hussain, 42, was first involved with the extremists in the early 1990s, and backed them at meetings after the July 7 bombings in 2005. He also has a conviction for an assault, committed when he was 17. His lawyers confirmed that he was convicted of actual bodily harm in 1988 or 1989 and sentenced to three months in a young offenders institution.
They said that the conviction is now “spent” and its disclosure has “no legitimate …public interest”.
However, it would have been relevant to his presence in Downing Street as it raises serious security questions about whether he was fully vetted

Ted re your article: “The Sunday Express and senior councillors have asked whether he was required by his bosses to declare his business and political interests and, if so, whether he has done so.

The council said it would not comment on any employee but added: “We do have mechanisms to look into matters of public interest.”

Isn’t this baloney? Publicly paid officials surely are accountable. MPs and councillors are obiged to declare interests and this council response is not acceptable. It is another example why Eric Pickles must now take over direct control of the council. It has become totally dysfunctional.

In the middle of a severe economic crisis the council has turned down an investment offer that would provide up to 3,000 jobs and many training opportunities for young people in Spitalfields by refusing plannning permission for the redevelopment fo the Fruit & Wool Exchange. This development was widely supported by local residents, businesses and council officers. The Development Committee is obliged to operate in a quasi judicial way – but instead chose to play petty politics (again).

there are rumours that Eric is about to make a move. Not a moment too soon.

“There are rumours that Eric is about to make a move. Not a moment too soon.”

Really? I sincerely hope those rumours are correct. I did read a piece in the Evening Standard (I think) last week which said he was going to make the ‘guidance’ on town-hall funded newspapers legally binding. I hope your ‘rumours’ are about more of a move than just this …

There is no question in my mind that this Officer has to complete the form which all senior managers within a Council have to complete on an annual basis regarding their “interests” – both political and financial.

If the question posed is “Does the post which this individual occupies have to declare any business and political interests?” then the strictly factual and impersonal response to this question is either ‘Yes’ or ‘No’.

The reason that interests have to be declared is to promote the process of transparency and to avoid any possible accusations of wrongdoing or inappropriate influence.

It would appear this Council has no interest whatsoever in making matters of public interest available to the public.

This outfit designs to: “advance the social, physical and spiritual education” of young people, “particularly those residing in disadvantaged urban communities” – read between the lines and we know what this means…

If you notice, the organisations with a sectarian slant more money on average than the non-sectarian organisations; Brick Lane YDA receives £45k, Dawatul Islam gets £30k, LMC gets £40k, Jagonari receives £40k and HEBA receives £30k. Other organisations which make no reference to peoples’ cultural or religious background (nor market themselves towards a certain community) get far less; a good example is Spitalfields Small Business Association which desperately needs money to give in grants to start up firms, which gets a paltry £15k.

The grandly named “Cultural Industries Development Agency” (CIDA) based on Greatorex Street in the heart of Banglatown receives by far the largest amount; a whopping £105,000 in council tax payers money…and among other things they rent out office space. I cannot help but wonder if there aren’t enough artists around Brick Lane… is this a good use of public money?

Comments are closed.

Email Subscription

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.